Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Statistics Of Being In A Plane Crash  
User currently offlineDrinkstrolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 26157 times:

In a fit of boredom at LHR waiting for my BMI flight to DUB, I bought a book called "The Flying Book" by David Blatner (ISBN 0-140-29787-1) and in it there are some truly mad statistics.

i.) More people die in the US in six months in cars than in aeroplanes in the last 100 years!

ii.) If air travel were as safe as driving a car, a jet carrying 120 pax would crash without survivours every day of the year!

iii.) In 1998 in the US 2.5 million Americans died. 700,000 heart disease. 500,000 cancer. 50,000 medical screw ups in hostpitals and more than 20,000 in car crashes. But in the same year not a single fatality from a US based airline. Even in 1994 with a higher than average crash rate, 239 people died.

iiii.) In 1995 Americans took 505 million car trips of over 100 miles resulting in the death of 22,000 people. The same year U.S carriers flew 8.1 million flights and two crashes resulting in the death of 166. If the average car had 2 people and the average flight 150 there were 22 deaths per million car trips and only 0.14 deaths per million flights therefore making air travel 157 safer than driving (<---MAD!!!).  Wink

The highest risk is on short haul in devolping nations where the odds drop to 1 in 500,000. This equates to one day in 1300 years!!

Finally, using less "damp" statistics. The US Bureau Of Transportation Statistics calculate the the fatalities per million miles travelled are:- Car 9.3. Trains 5. and for commercial flights 1.22. Therefore, flying is eight times safer than driving and twice as safe as the train!

Good book and well worth eight quid!!!

Cheers!

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 26096 times:

Nice stats. Thx.

Not surprising really. Commercial flying is done by highly trained professionals in some of the safest and most well maintained machines ever constructed. Much driving is done by barely literate individuals who:
- Never have to repeat a driving test, even after decades of driving.
- Can buy any old beater and neglect maintenance.
- Often don't wear their seatbelts.
- Assume things that other drivers (who are equally inadequate) will behave according to their own ideals.
- Never do a pre-driving check.
- Never check the tyre pressure.

The list goes on.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 26093 times:

Well as Mark Twain said:

Quote:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

and the statistics would have meant nothing to those unfortunate souls who boarded the Helios 737 the Sunday before last.

On a more serious note, I shall keep a look out for the book.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineGeoffm From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 26067 times:

Quoting Drinkstrolley (Thread starter):
More people die in the US in six months in cars than in aeroplanes in the last 100 years!

Yes, and more than 200x more people travel by car every day than by plane!

Quoting Drinkstrolley (Thread starter):
Finally, using less "damp" statistics. The US Bureau Of Transportation Statistics calculate the the fatalities per million miles travelled are:- Car 9.3. Trains 5. and for commercial flights 1.22. Therefore, flying is eight times safer than driving and twice as safe as the train!

I was shown some UK statistics on a safety course. In terms of miles per passenger, planes were far safer than anything else. But in terms of TRIPS per passenger, TRAINS were just a little bit safer than planes. Makes you think. Statistics can be twisted to present the facts they want you to think.

But other than that... yeah.

Geoff M.


User currently offlineVoyager747 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 26052 times:

But then again take a look at what happened in Toronto.All those people survived.I think that the statistics in that case are correct.

My best wishes to the families of those who died on Helios 737.


User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1458 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 26005 times:

Great statistics! When I leave my client each week, people always say, "Have a safe flight!" I always respond one of two ways:

Safe is a foregone conclusion; on-time is real problem.

and

It's not the flight I'm worried about; it's the drive to the airport.

It's gets even more amazing. I am far, far more likely to be killed by a simple accident in my own home (e.g. -- falling down the stairs) than I am on a commercial airliner. When I settle in to my seat on the airplane, I often think to myself, "You are virtually guaranteed to be alive two hours from now."

This safety is not just a testament to the pilots and ATC system (archaic as it is). To me, it's a statement first to the engineers that built the airplane, and then even moreso to the mechanics that maintain it. Safety starts long before the pilot ever advances the throttles for takeoff.

And it makes perfect sense that people die in cars at 8x the clip they do in airplanes. There's one very obvious fact of traffic that nobody can deny: cars travel on intersecting thoroughfares. Airplanes don't. OH, and cars can't vertically space themselves. Airplanes can. I don't have the stats in front of me, but the fatality rate on divided highways is much, much less than on all other types of roads. Take away the intersections, and you reduce the chances for you car to hit anything.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineBHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 26000 times:

I read somewhere that statistically speaking, 90% of all people are caused by accidents  Smile


Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
User currently offlineDrinkstrolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 25983 times:

Quoting Geoffm (Reply 3):
Statistics can be twisted to present the facts they want you to think.

Hence I threw in the phrase "Damp Statistics"!!

 Big grin


User currently offlineDrinkstrolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 25977 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
- Never have to repeat a driving test, even after decades of driving.
- Can buy any old beater and neglect maintenance.
- Often don't wear their seatbelts.
- Assume things that other drivers (who are equally inadequate) will behave according to their own ideals.
- Never do a pre-driving check.
- Never check the tyre pressure.

Where do you know my wife from then?


 Wink


User currently offlineTimmytour From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 25951 times:

I guess the chances of surviving a train or car crash must be considerably higher than surviving an aeroplane crash! (why doesn't spellcheck accept aeroplane!)

Also, as I think has already been pointed out, people undergo many more car journeys than plane journeys and relative safety measured on a per trip measure I imagine would be better in cars.

Something about the terrorism threat has to be added as well. Terrorists with a mindest to do so could probably kill more on an aggregate basis doing something on the roads, or even by driving cars onto railway crossings at crucial times. However, as this would not generate the kind of worldwide headlines they are after, aircraft seem to be their preferred target of transportation (though not exclusive as Madrid and London have proved)

Thus if it's terrorism you fear, then air travel might be something you would be more inclined to steer clear of.


User currently offlineGLA MD11 From France, joined Mar 2000, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 25938 times:

On Yahoo News France yesterday, they said that the chance of dying in a plane crash is 0.005 per million pax km (1 pax for 1 km). What's that supposed to mean?

"Statistics are like bikinis: they give a fairly good idea but hide what's really important".  Wink


User currently offline757lgw From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 152 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 25774 times:

What would be more interesting to know is what is the most common way to die onboard a plane? i wonder if your book has the details of fatailies after being sucked down the toilet? (i still dont understand peoples fear of that)
In all seriousness i would imagine that you are more likley to die on plane having a regular heart attack than during a crash?


User currently offlineLFutia From Netherlands, joined Dec 2002, 3339 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 25761 times:

i agree with the statistics... in fact you are more likely to be killed going to/from the airport than on a plane.

Leo



Leo/ORD -- Groetjes uit de VS! -- Heeft u laatst nog met KLM gevlogen?
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 25744 times:

Quoting 757lgw (Reply 11):
In all seriousness i would imagine that you are more likley to die on plane having a regular heart attack than during a crash?

I've had two passengers die of natural causes over the years but I've never killed one in a crash.

So what are my stats?

When I used to fly light planes, down closer to the ground I'd often look down at a two-lane highway and see cars approaching from opposite directions. It struck me what a wild county-fair daredevil act that would make! Two people who don't even know each other, driving cars of unknown mechanical reliability are going to approach head-on at a closure speed of well over one hundred miles per hour and pass within a couple of feet of each other, separated only by a white line painted on the pavement! And the crowd goes wild!!!!



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineDarthRandall From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 302 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 25692 times:

Statistics or no, those are some interesting figures.

Quoting Geoffm (Reply 3):
I was shown some UK statistics on a safety course. In terms of miles per passenger, planes were far safer than anything else. But in terms of TRIPS per passenger, TRAINS were just a little bit safer than planes. Makes you think. Statistics can be twisted to present the facts they want you to think.

Even factoring AMTRAK into the equation? Dang. I guess that isn't too far-fetched for commuter rail.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Not surprising really. Commercial flying is done by highly trained professionals in some of the safest and most well maintained machines ever constructed. Much driving is done by barely literate individuals who:
- Never have to repeat a driving test, even after decades of driving.
- Can buy any old beater and neglect maintenance.
- Often don't wear their seatbelts.
- Assume things that other drivers (who are equally inadequate) will behave according to their own ideals.
- Never do a pre-driving check.
- Never check the tyre pressure.

Don't forget: are over sixty and have the reflexes of a three-toed sloth; treat stop signs more like guidelines than rules; drive vehicles so large that it is impossible for any other motorist driving a reasonable-sized vehicle to see around it; tries to drive while carrying on lengthy conversations on their cellphone; or, worst of all, are from Florida.

Or, in my particular case, drive with little or no regard to the speed limit.



Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads all the time and don't even think twice about it.
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 25662 times:

Statistics are only good for insurance companies. They mean nothing to the flying public. How come no body is woried of being killed in a car crash, there is certainly a higher chance of that for you. As long as the company takes care of the plane, the plane will take care of you.

User currently offlineYow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 25619 times:

Quoting Voyager747 (Reply 4):
But then again take a look at what happened in Toronto.All those people survived.I think that the statistics in that case are correct.

Excellent point and welcome to a.net by the way. I saw an interesting documentary (I think on the Discovery Channel) once about how if you were to ride an airplane every single day of your life, you would have to wait, on average, 26,000 years to be in a plane crash, and even then odds are decent that you'd survive.


User currently offlineGeoffm From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 25538 times:

Quoting DarthRandall (Reply 14):
Quoting Geoffm (Reply 3):
I was shown some UK statistics on a safety course. In terms of miles per passenger, planes were far safer than anything else. But in terms of TRIPS per passenger, TRAINS were just a little bit safer than planes. Makes you think. Statistics can be twisted to present the facts they want you to think.

Even factoring AMTRAK into the equation? Dang. I guess that isn't too far-fetched for commuter rail.

Um... Amtrak doesn't run in the UK (thankfully). Though to be fair, I don't think any of Amtrak's recent derailments or crashes have been due to their own equipment - more the host freight railroad's track condition, and due to road/rail collisions.

Geoff M.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25496 times:

Quoting DarthRandall (Reply 14):
or, worst of all, are from Florida.

To quote Seinfeld: "they sit low... they drive slow..."



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
President Of Honduras In Plane Crash posted Mon May 2 2005 11:01:48 by Snaiks
CEO Of Atlas Dies In Plane Crash posted Wed Jan 24 2001 23:45:21 by UPS Pilot
Jose Wejebe (Spanish Fly) Killed In Plane Crash posted Sun Apr 8 2012 14:42:37 by PC12Fan
Alejandro Maclean Dies In Plane Crash posted Tue Aug 17 2010 10:24:04 by airkas1
NBA Owner Dies In Plane Crash. posted Fri Sep 11 2009 14:20:13 by FXramper
5 British Tourists Killed In Plane Crash posted Sun Jun 17 2007 19:36:45 by A320ajm
1 Dead In Plane Crash Near Spruce Creek Fly-In, FL posted Mon Mar 5 2007 03:43:44 by KFLLCFII
Buddy Holly Dies In Plane Crash This Day 1959 posted Sat Feb 3 2007 12:15:18 by Cumulus
14 Killed In Plane Crash In Colombia posted Sun Jan 14 2007 09:49:23 by Macc
S.C. Lieutenant Governor Injured In Plane Crash posted Wed May 24 2006 03:53:00 by Skoker
Buddy Holly Dies In Plane Crash This Day 1959 posted Sat Feb 3 2007 12:15:18 by Cumulus
14 Killed In Plane Crash In Colombia posted Sun Jan 14 2007 09:49:23 by Macc